The Kurdish nation.

The reason why Kurdish left-wing patriots are turning to separatist nationalism is that you, the super-internationalists, Iranian communists, under the guise of hypocritical internationalism, are you denying the Kurdish people the right to autonomy within a democratic federation. 

The ideological attack and slander they have exercised e.g. the Hekmatists against the federal idea leads the Kurds directly to the idea of secession, and so super-internationalism is once again revealed as a tool of chauvinism of the powerful ethnic groups (in this case the Persian national majority once again), on the basis of the ''logic'' of assimilation and cultural alienation of oppressed and weak ethnic groups. 

What else can these ethnic groups, such as the Kurds, do but turn to autonomism after all this? 

It was inevitable, and in this light it was entirely expected that Komala would disintegrate again and that a united Kurdish national front would emerge, beyond vague, imaginary chimerical and ultimately dubious internationalisms, which always "accidentally" prevent an ethnicity, a nation, to find its own independent path.

In the beginning there was the possibility of a federal democracy, but the Iranian communists blocked it, they wanted everything, now they will have nothing. 

The Kurdish nation is finding its way, like any other nation. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Secular religions

Secular religions have a quality that gives them both an advantage and a disadvantage compared to purely transcendental religions: the hope for the realization of the heavenly vision on earth.

When this heavenly vision is "applied" there are some problems, paradise then appears either as a semi-paradise (at best) or as a normal hell. But even then, if the visionaries are at a guaranteed great spatial distance, then the vision can remain intact, with propaganda lies and ideological drugs. That is why modern ideological religions keep their "self" strong when they "operate" idealizations from a safe distance, "away from our ass".

But when the existence of this false State ceases, when the realization of Paradise collapses even far away from us, then there is a problem. Paradise was fake, even though it existed somewhere as a Name as a point as a flag, while now it has disappeared from the earth, so what do we do?  

Here is the disadvantage compared to purely transcendental religions: 

The (imaginary too) Paradise of purely transcendental religions is so ... far away that no refutation can touch it.

The wounded visionaries of the worldly Paradise, however, counterattack and close their deep wound with a new vision, of a distant place, yet existing on earth again.

So they discover new exotic movements, heavenly, far removed from their ass.

And the life of religions goes on.

Amen. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Hekmat and Kurdistan.

Hekmat slandered the idea of ​​a federation as a vehicle for Kurdish nationalism and said in one of his sophistic arguments something like this: Leave the idea of ​​a federation, if you want you can leave a united socialist Iran, but federation? No. 

It put the Kurds in front of a blackmailing ideological and political dilemma, which in fact functioned and functions as an ideological-moral repression. When you put someone in front of such a dilemma, you are actually depriving them of the opportunity to think beyond the terms of a metaphysically meant extreme polarization in which there are only two absolute possibilities and thus moderate intermediate solutions are ruled out. Because people know that secession means bad things, you push them to accept a somewhat better scenario, to exist in a single territory without direct oppression, thus wanting to make them forget the really best scenario which is the federation. 

Ultra-Communist ideological chauvinism that fits snugly with the wishes of the Persian ethnic majority and with the ideology of the ethnically assimilated Kurds whether they are communists or not.

Thus, through the assimilation of Kurdish left-wing patriots and nationalists through an abstract super-internationalist Marxism, there was no national movement analogous to that which existed in Turkey. The chauvinist Turkish Maoists and communists did the same, but the great leader of the Kurdish people, Ocalan, blocked their way, establishing a great and militarily incomparably effective national democratic movement. 

If Ocalan had not prevailed in the factional struggle, even by hard means, there would be nothing in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan today, and the Kurdish-Turkish Marxist-Leninist left would still be discussing exactly what Marx, Lenin and Mao said in the letter ''a'' or ''b'' etc. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Stalin and Trotsky..

Both Stalin and Trotsky coldly plotted a mass crime against the poor peasants of their country. 

Stalin did it. 

All this under the pretext of communist collectivization and the war against the Kulaks. Liars both. 

The state collectivization was done with the aim of enslaving the poor peasants to the new exploiters and tyrants, state and party bureaucrats. If the Stalinists and the Trotskyists are real communists, I am the Sultan of Brunei. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

One year after the Russian invasion.

One year after the Russian invasion.

Personal detachment, complete ideological apostasy, not for to I fall into the arms of the right or to the bourgeois liberalism, but to think alone, without any ideological family chain anymore. 

Alone, you and me, opposite.

---

I judge a global political space, a global political subjectivity, based on its first (as a majority within it) immediate reactions to an important international political event.

Today a large part of the global left has slightly corrected its positions on the question of the genocidal attack of the Russian imperialists, but even now there is in its popular base (all over the world) a significant luben current of support for Russia, and inside the somewhat more intellectual currents in circles of intellectuals and journalists, there is a significant current of critics of the Russian intervention, but most of them in retrospect and without making open self-criticism for their first neutral reactions, and also unfortunately there is a more insidious neutral current in which secret pro-Russians or sick anti-Westerners are hidden, or simply expresses through it the ultimately most reprehensible attitude of the left today, which is however an extension of old ideological and moral sins, which manifests a incredible and vast political cynicism that competes with the right-wing/fascist cynicism.

The global left, as an overall ideological current, was not completely defeated in 1989, with the fall of Stalinism, it is breathing its last breath now, on the ruins of Ukraine. 

Personal note

---

What is left, for me, as a living thing within the so-called movement, is the ruin, but alive as a ruin, of anarchism. 

Of course, I don't declare myself an anarchist, but if there is something that makes sense to put in front of me in order to judge it and practice polemics against it or to convince me, that is anarchism.

Besides, in my humble opinion, the deepest core of radical movements in the modern era is the anarchist ideological core. 

In the light of this core and in the light of the possible criticism we will bring to it, we will also see the "left" phenomenon. 

With the left, I will not talk in essence again, as we would commonly say. 

I don't talk truly to them anymore. 

I talk to everyone, but I will only talk to the leftists and to the right-fascists only as a complete stranger. 

I tell them clearly. To me they are strangers forever.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

The Charter movement

The Charter movement is better than the right-wing movement of superficially pro-Western followers of the would-be Shah, but it is a movement that does not raise the issue of multi-ethnic democratic representation of the multi-ethnic Iranian people, through a "body" of directly and freely elected representatives, as a direct revolutionary demand.

The Iranian people expect democracy and what do the opposition offer them?

Bonapartist monarchical pseudo-liberalism of the Right and radical semi-democracy of the Left, without either of them talking about a freely elected constitutional "body" of power.

The impasse theirs, of the right and the left Iranians.

----

Το κίνημα τής Χάρτας είναι καλύτερο από το δεξιό κίνημα των επιφανειακα φιλοδυτικών, ακόλουθων τού επίδοξου Σάχη, όμως είναι ένα κίνημα που δεν θέτει το ζήτημα για πολυεθνική δημοκρατική αντιπροσώπευση τού πολυεθνικού ιρανικού λαού, μέσω ενός σώματος άμεσα εκλεγμένων αντιπροσώπων, ως άμεσο επαναστατικό αίτημα.

Ο Ιρανικός λαός περιμένει δημοκρατία και τι του προσφέρουν οι τής αντιπολίτευσης;

Βοναπαρτιστικο μοναρχικό ψευτο-φιλελευθερισμό οι Δεξιοί και κοινωνικό δημοκρατισμό οι αριστεροί, χωρίς κανένας από τους δύο να μιλά για ελεύθερα εκλεγμένο συντακτικό σώμα εξουσίας.

Το αδιέξοδο δικό τους, των δεξιών και των αριστερών Ιρανών.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Kind of comical..

Kind of comical.

Separate grassroots movements sometimes want a useful transient relationship with the enemy of their enemy (who, transient lover, is not the best dude), but they receive criticism from other grassroots movements who do the same thing, but with the dude who is the enemy of the other dude (the dude who is in a temporary romantic relationship with the criticized).

The criticized's answer is that everyone does the same.

However, when the criticized comes to the position of the criticize, he does not say the same thing as what he said when he was criticized! He also says what his critics used to tell him.

We are all hypocrites, that's what I have to say.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition

The "Charter of Minimum Demands" presented by a multitude of trade union and social organizations in Iran, is a positive democratic step to create a broader democratic unity of leftist and progressive forces against the theocratic regime. 

However, it does not suggest the question of creating a constitutive constitutional assembly of freely elected representatives. 

In this sense the whole text is incomplete. 

On the other hand, the most sectarian, extreme Leninists, etc., who judge this Charter negatively, don't also raise the question of a freely elected democratic governing body of Iran, building this their inability to propose the correct no on the shyness of the left-wing democrats who drafted the Charter, but on their incurable sectarianism. 

The Iranian left is entrenched in an ideological system that promotes the shyness of democratic initiative or the sectarianism. 

However, the source of shy action is also sectarianism. n

The authors of the text of the Charter are also influenced by a dogmatic type of neo-Marxism that may seem satisfactory to the movement in the West as a neo-leftism that coexists normally with a mature bourgeois democracy, but this dogmatism does not meet the needs of a movement that has as its historical task also modern democracy.

---------

The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition is further complicated by the strange reappearance of a top security guard and torturer of the Shah's old regime at a demonstration. 

It is generally considered that this appearance had a symbolic character and sent messages from the monarchists and the would-be Shah himself, but to whom? 

Was the would-be Shah aware of this strange reappearance? 

Was it done with his approval? 

Could it be that an essentially insignificant event, was exploited by the Russian Putinist and Iranian theocratic propaganda machines to create a complete alienation between the secular right/extreme right and the rest of the (left, democratic, centrist) wing of the Iranian opposition?

For 2 years, but also now, since the beginning of the new movement in Iran, I have said that there is a special propagandistic collaboration between Russian Putinists and Iranian theocrats so that, when there is appearance of far-right elements "next to" the Iranian movement, to become "useful objects" of propaganda campaign to slandering the whole movement. I can prove this that I have predicted this and I have said this. I asked the Iranian friends in Left to keep calm, but I see that if there is a theocratic and Russian trap, they are already trapped. Does what I say mean that the royalists are justified? No. 

Does this mean that surely the would-be Shah has also fallen prey to a provocation trap? No. The Shah and his followers, as well as the semi-liberal circles around the Shah, have shown that they have clear Bonapartist authoritarian aspirations, since they do not openly talk about a representative parliamentary sovereign democratic system. Neither did the would-be Shah separate himself from his father's crimes, nor did he separate himself from the torturers of Savak.

---

There is no political scene as complex as the Iranian one. 

Vertigo of multiple contrasts forming a maze of possibilities.

To say my stereotype, Iran is the land of multiple mirrors.

I hope the left and the centrist forces succeed, that's all I can say.

---

The revolution is in the streets, it is not "begging for something from the West" but also it does not keep equal distances between "Eurasia" and the West. 

Because whoever keeps these equal "anti-imperialist" distances, ultimately does not keep real equal distances, it doing the favour of "Eurasia", i.e. Eurasianism.

Why is he doing that? because of ideological virginity?

I hope that's it, and that he doesn't harbor hopes of future alliances with the emerging Hitlers of the East.

--

I read, but I hope it is a rumour, that the European Parliament has invited as a speaker the would-be, and probably far-right, Shah.

See now what is the difference, for example, between the USA and the European Union.

The Americans (capitalist-imperialists) support whoever it is convenient for them to support, without being so strict in their bourgeois ideological preferences, and without raising their ideological stature until they become the judges of the universe, without on the other hand avoiding their own messianic or other bad moralisms.

In the Iran issue there has been support for the would-be Shah, also for the People's Mujahideen (MEK), which was founded as a left-wing Islamic anti-imperialist organization that killed American agents and ended up, after an unacceptable alliance with Saddam Hussein, having a strategic relationship of support from circles of the US Republican party (no offense to them by me).

Also the US has generally helped others, centrists, groups and personalities, and as a western country has certainly offered political asylum and a well-meaning hospitality and acceptance to many known and unknown Iranians and Kurds.

In general, the USA plays with everyone and everything, and of course as a superpower it also plays games with the theocratic elite, especially the so-called reformers.

Behind and beside everything, of course, there is a continuous economic game of capital, legal or semi-legal or illegal activities, the well-known of capitalism.

What is Europe doing? (we mean the European Union).

Similar things, almost the same, but by adding we would say that there is help from state and European institutions and civil societies not exclusively to the Iranian and Kurdish leftists, but nevertheless the Iranian and Kurdish leftists feel perhaps in the territory of the European Union somewhat like at home.

All good so far.

And so a moment comes the European Union, this undefined Thing, and after supporting the Iranian democrats, in general the anti-establishment ones, says in its broadest "wisdom" the irresistible, and finally unaccountable, "maybe we should call prince (would-be Shah), to his make a speech in the European Parliament?".

These people, if this invitation is valid and it is not a rumor, they are idiots, they are dumb, they are stupid lobbyists, scumbags, small-minded people.

They commit the politics and the name of Europe and its citizens to the promotion of a successor of a bloodthirsty regime, who indeed does not guarantee a smooth democratic transition from a theocratic regime to a parliamentary democracy, but plays with all possible bonapartist semi-dictatorial semi-fascist scenarios succession of regime from another regime.

There was a networking of the monarchists and the so-called experts of the European institutions, who fell like a ripe fruit, something like the "unfortunate" Greek MEP?

I hope the information I am conveying to you is not valid.

But when one looks at and compares European with American and British bourgeois politics, one sees the difference in the level of power, seriousness, coherence and simultaneous multiplicity in strategic thinking and action between the two main pillars of the West's international dominance.

The bastions of the West are not, therefore, the carnivals of the European Union, they are the USA, NATO and Great Britain.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Very general conclusion.

It is known that Khomeini returned to Iran to take power on an Air France plane, we also know that he was playing games with both French capital and American capital to prevent the rise of leftist and communist forces after the imminent fall of the Shah.

At that time the West believed, rightly if one looks at it cynically, that such a rise would benefit the Soviet Union.

All of these correctly reflect some aspects of the rise of theocrats to power, but on the other hand, through this narrative, when it is absolutized, we forget the equally important other side of the political and economic reality that was signaled and recommended by this triumphant return of the dark Imam in "his" unfortunate country.

The maneuvering of the West and the naivety of its pragmatistic anti-Soviet cynicism did not leave it unscathed in the end, when it was revealed that the dark Imam and his faction did indeed aim, and succeeded, at creating a harsh dark and reactionary capitalist theocratic regime which indeed it was independent and hostile towards the Western world and Western imperialism.

Iranian leftists will of course object to this fact saying that this regime continued to have capitalist dealings with Western capitalists, etc.

But this does not negate the aforementioned.

We should not judge the Iranian theocrats from an assumed "common value" that consist of opposition to Western imperialism, as if they abandoning it because they are not consistent with the "untouchable" that this supposed value means.

If we do this, it will be as if we are assuming that indeed the opposition in the West and also in imperialism in general should be intrinsically good and benevolent, the "Indeed Good", which these Islamists supposedly betray with their parallel dealings with the "Western Enemy".

The very leftist criticism against the Iranian theocrats on the basis of (usually always) ontological anti-imperialism does not reveal their supposed inconsistency but our possible involvement with a dangerous politically metaphysical ideology called "anti-imperialism".

--

 

Very general conclusion:

Anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism usually means an ideological expression of a capitalist state opposition on the part of the weaker capitalism and state.

However, the cure from this wrong positioning of the problem, which concerns the overcoming of imperialism without this overcoming falling into "anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism", is not a reductionism in the general "anti-capitalism" in a competitive distinction from "anti-imperialism".

Therefore?

What is the medicine for critical theory?

I don't know.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

The imminent democratic revolution..

 

The imminent democratic revolution in Iran has begun, still faintly, and must make way by rapidly and relentlessly breaking through the jungle of theocrats and Bonapartists, monarchists and sectarian Leninists, which surrounds it from its first moment.

To revolution, put aside all the Bonapartist delusionalists who think that the history of the abuse of the democratic and socialist ideal can be repeat forever.

---

The great democratic revolution in Russia is not called the "October revolution", ''October'' was the Bonapartist coup of the pseudo-communist Bolsheviks, which overthrew the democratic revolution and established from the first moment a state-capitalist totalitarian system of exploitation of the working class, extermination of the middle class and the poor peasantry, prohibition of free political activity, prohibition of the freedom of intellectuals, and had as its ideological culmination, as a Bonapartist coup, the calumniation (for centuries) of the sacred idea of a classless socialist society.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Cogitations. February 19, 2022, Facebook.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

February 19, 2022

 

When ''the'' dialectic ends in a fiasco, ''it'' accuses the fiasco of being "anti-dialectical".

 

Dialectical philosophers feel no guilt.
Others are always to blame,
or rather the "other".

 

The dialectic of fiasco
is a bigger fiasco.

 

The dialectic after the fiasco does not always call itself dialectical.
Known for ''its'' ability to put on masks.

 

Everything is calm in the dialectical consciousness.
It will find the explanation for fiasco through a dialectic, of course.

 

Ignoring the fiasco is the infamous achievement of these philosophers who declared to their astonished dazzled audience that from now on nothing will be overlooked. 

Oh dialectic of the new glorious times! you did it again! you sanctify in every way the neglect and sophistry that gives its "foundation".  

 

Looking for the right starting point for interpreting thought forms, you run the risk of never interpreting them, you may even avoid a more substantial contact with these forms.

However, there is a valid requirement from this search for the right start, in the sense that in this way - even if it means avoiding "contact" with this "object" - you can express a resistance of yourself to a a specific form of thought or an entire era of thought.

So, basically it is like preventing an alienation of your thought from its already existing beginnings.

When this strange struggle is over, you can now come in contact with the "object - thought form" you wanted to interpret.

So you probably know why you wanted to interpret it and many times you find that you wanted to interpret it because through this interpretation you wanted to get rid of some theological type of bonds and chains that had been imposed on you by the "yours community" as sacred preconceptions.

Now you know that you were actually resisting to something that was for you a "foreign body of thought" and which the leaders of this community had introduced into your "body of thought". 

But why did I say all this? 

What was the reason? 

I said this to confess to you that in fact I always saw Hegelianism as something that did not make sense, even when I was obliged as a Marxist to respect it and to believe that it contained a truth that was valid for my (then) community.

Something was protecting me and I could never go any further. 

Something? Myself. 

 

There is an absolute suspicion that does not necessarily lead to paranoia.

You do not want to believe in assumptions about a redemptive future, no matter how many conditions and guarantees are in front of you.

No, I will not sign any contract, you say, I will not give my consent to any strategic vision and idea, even if its represantives are obviously good and are able to sacrifice their sweet lives to do what they say.

You ask for something more than guarantees and good intentions, you ask for an image of reality that does not mean something so easy, so ideal, so beautiful, that it probably means an unfulfilled wish.

You have no problem with crazy desires and great loves, you have a problem with their bitter cancellations that could have been prevented.

 

When they start looking for you, do not forget to tell them that you have already left.
Tehran is the destination.

 

Between one phrase and another phrase there is another phrase.
What a fuck, fuck them babe!

 

You are hegemonic when the others translate you, before you translate these others.

 

You are hegemonic when you interpret before you are interpreted.

 

In addition to the primary accumulation of Capital there is (in parallel, but not identically) the primary accumulation of Power and Sovereignty, which always takes place as the formation of a separate world-wide sovereign metropolitan pole-world through and beyond the ''individual'' national state powers.

The western world has already been formed as a separate sovereign pole-world, so it has made the primary accumulation in both the economic and the political-military field.

The non-Western world, especially the "east", is still ''finishing'' the incomplete yet primary accumulation of power and sovereignty while it has completed the primary accumulation of capital, although we do not know whether it will end it as a metropolitan accumulation of power and dominance [as a one distinct metropolitan sovereign pole-world].

The primary accumulation of power and sovereignty means, among others (such as the development of nation-states) blood, war, continuous rearrangements of borders and state territories.

It is a dehumanizing process that has ethnic and other minorities as its first victims, as long as the working class maintains a class waiting attitude.

Just because this process contains all these "necessary" dehumanizing socio-historical "stages" as historically "necessary" does not mean that these are "rights" in the case of the emerging capitalist East.

The fact that the West has committed them is not an element of a sin that must be punished, and therefore does not mean that Western societies, and not just their bourgeoisie, have no right to defend themselves to stop this rotten dynamic.

The argument of the post-colonialist ideologues that the West is sinful, and therefore that the fanatics, emerging imperialists, nationalist-fundamentalists of the East also have the right to do what the West did in its beginnings, is a rotten argument.

The ''fact'' that my "grandfather" was probably a Western colonialist, and that the West formed [in the way we know] "itself" as an imperialist supranational international pole, does not mean that we, the new Westerners citizens, we have a moral obligation to tolerate the repetition by the eastern rulers of the crimes committed by this supposed "grandfather" of ours.

There is a historical analogy, and a similar historical ''necessity'' to the formation of a distinct new hegemonic pole, but we are obliged to restrain it and fight it from the point of view of our own national, class and cultural interests.  

 

One can write a dictionary of the demonological categorizations used by Marxists against their ideological enemies inside and outside the left.

These are faithful people who theologize in everything, but have a lie on their forehead that says:

"I am an atheist".

 

The famous cultural revolution of the Maoist Red Guards ushered in a new era of pseudo-Marxist Stalinist paranoia, in which the absence of internal enemies in a ''wannabe'' socialist system was transformed into the production of these enemies within the working classes. 

Of course, this paranoia has always existed in the wider (and not only in the Stalinist) Marxist "camp", in the form of racist anti-petty bourgeoisie ideology. Any internal ideological opponent within the left could be accused of being a petty bourgeois, with no criteria other than some possible "class descent" or a bad habit of reading ''more than normal'' books or wanting to have a personal life that is not completely transparent and entirely dedicated to the struggle. 

Of course the accusers themselves may have had the same intellectual habits, and a well-hidden personal life, but that did not matter, since the very absurdity of the class slander, its non-foundation, is precisely the method by which one can use it in a slander and ultimately legal prosecution, which sometimes resulted it in the execution of individuals or even masses of people.

Until the specific paranoia of Maoism, however, there was no greater systematization of irrationality, the sin of being supposedly a petty bourgeois was confined as an active sin in the phases of "socialist primary accumulation" and in individual persecutions.

With Maoism there was a Puritan radicalization of the theological pseudo-class persecution and all the intellectual sub-classes were directly guilty just because they were intellectuals, regardless of whether some of them were hungry and starving or were made up of workers without property. Are you an intellectual? are you a scientist so you are rather bourgeois or petty bourgeois etc. As long as the class struggle continues so you are also a class enemy. The very doctrine of the continuation of the class struggle within a society that has supposedly abolished class exploitation, even as an early classless society, has this significance: to justify the continuation of state repression within a society in which there is supposedly no class exploitation etc. In order to find these potential exploiters, a new type of paranoid "class theory" must be constructed that exacerbates the already existing anti-petty-bourgeois paranoia of Marxism to the point of absolute paranoia.

It is not difficult to understand that none of these things have anything to do with a real working-class socialism and with the working class itself.

But the problem with the radical sects is bigger, and it is not limited to the Maoists.

There is a broader mentality and ideology that is rooted in the popular movement and infects all its tendencies, rather expressing the historical weakness and immaturity of this movement.

That is why even today, despite the decline of Stalinism-Maoism, we see these ideological and cultural ills continue to exist in ideological "spaces" that are not Stalinist.

 

A basic principle of political immorality is not to accept any strategic mistake of those who formed and then those who implemented a strategic idea. The "others" are always to blame. ''This'' can to call itself "science".

 

There will be a revolution in Iran.

It is as certain as the law of universal gravitation.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

On this point, to the leader of the Hekmatists..

A general idea or ideology that extends its claim to political power throughout the human world must contain intrinsically a controlling conceptual-ideological self-limitation, which would correspond as a political act to a corresponding material self-limitation expressed in a free-for-all demokratic institution.

I see no such thing in the "communists" of the only-and-only generalized workers' councils or soviets.
The generality and abstract generic power of the worker's communist idea without a (conceptual and material) democratic-institutional self-limitative counterbalance, can very easily turn into another version of class exploitative tyranny.

--

 

On this point, to the leader of the Hekmatists: the patriotism of the Ukrainians, who are facing a conquering force that aims at the appropriation of their country's resources but also at the assimilative disappearance of the Ukrainian nation, is, as patriotism, an exclusively "bourgeois-capitalist" affair of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie?

I don't expect a straight answer, something like "yes, that's it".

Surely this leader would also condemn the Russian invasion, but not forgetting to remind that "in the final analysis" capitalism is generally to blame (or more generally the system of exploitation, etc.), that is, in simple moralistic language, everyone is equally to blame, meaning "all nationalisms" (they are to blame for the same).

Correctly. I don't have much to add to this supreme almost transcendental truth, I am left speechless again, especially when I realize once again that when you have with you a right of such general force of judgment, no one can catch you from anywhere, simply because even without invoking of "patriotism" (you flatten it like a marxist paver) you still have the possibility, if you want, on the basis of a non-racist workers' state run by your internationalist party, to prevent the Kurds, again for one reason for good, from seceding from "socialist Iran". It's simple, it doesn't take much ''patriotic'' effort, you will accuse them of..nationalism. Marxism is a very powerful religion..indeed.

 

اسخ به سئوال دوست عزیزی از ایران بنام مهران در مورد وطن

مهران: با پیشرفت جوامع بشری ناسیونالیسم و ارزشهای قومی و قبیله ای حتا مرزهای ژیوپالیتیک بی رنگ و کم اهمیت میشوند .ولی متاسفانه در تبلیغات بورژوازی ، کمونیست ها افرادی خائن ،وطن فروش معرفی میشوند که چاقو برداشته و می خواهند کشور را تجزیه و تیکه پاره کنند آنها دلسوز خانه بزرگ ما ایران نیستند، ناسیونالیسم را لگد میزنند ولی برای استقلال و یک پارچگی کردستان خودکشی می کنند ، فرهنگ و سنت های مردم را به نیشخند میگیرند ..ارزشی برای فرد و یک کارگر زحمتکش قائل نیستند ، بیشتر به حرکتهای توده ای یا حرکت گله ای مردم توجه دارند . در ایدیولوژی ایشان ارزشهای اخلاقی ، محبت ، مهرورزی ، لطافت و ظرافت کمرنگ است

بیشتر خردگرا ، خشک و ماشینی هستند ...

این گفتار بالا را پاسخ بفرمایید. هنگامیکه در سرود ای ایران ، خواننده می خواند : مهر تو از دل برون کنم... پس رفقای گرامی برای کدام سرزمین و خانه انگیزه خدمت دارند؟

حمید تقوائی: انگیزه ما خدمت به مردم است و نه آب و خاکی که وطن نامیده میشود. مهر مردم با مهر وطن نه تنها هم ارز نیست بلکه این دو نقطه مقابل هم هستند.

بورژوازی همیشه و در همه جای دنیا منافع خاکی و مادی اش را پشت مقولاتی نظیر قدوسیت وطن و کشور و تمامیت ارضی و آب و خاک پرستی پنهان کرده است و حمله اش به کمونیستها نیز دقیقا به این علت است که این منافع زمینی و مادی یعنی استثمار کارگران وطن و تصاحب و غارت منابع و معادن وطن و سلطه بلامنازع اش بر بازار وطنی کار و کالا، را از "خطر سوسیالیسم" مصون بدارد. این وطن پرستی بورژوائی هیچ ربطی به انس و علاقه توده مردم به محل زندگی و جامعه خود ندارد. منشا آن سودآوری است و نه احترام به فرهنگ و علایق و ارزشهای انسانی "هموطنان". همه جنگها و لشکرکشیها و نسلکشیها در تاریخ معاصر - از دو جنگ جهانی گرفته تا جنگهای محلی و منطقه ای - همیشه با پرچم وطن پرستی و دفاع از میهن در برابر بیگانگان توجیه شده است. جنگهائی که برای حفظ و بسط منافع اقتصادی بورژوازی حاکم در این کشورها برپا میشوند و از خون "هموطنان" مایه میگذارند. کاربرد ناسیونالیسم در زمان صلح هم دامن زدن به تعصبات ملی برای پرده پوشی تبعیضات و نابرابریهای طبقاتی در جامعه و جا زدن منافع طبقه سرمایه دار بجای منافع همه "هموطنان" است و بس. به این دلایل است که وطن پرستی در نقطه مقابل انساندوستی قرار میگیرد.

شما همین امروز در تبلیغات نیروهای راست، اعم از سلطنت طلبان و جمهوریخواهان و ملی اسلامیون حرف مشخصی در دفاع از مردم پیدا نمیکنید. در مورد حقوق بشر کلی بافی میکنند اما تا دلتان بخواهد در قدوسیت و اهمیت تمامیت ارضی و پرچم و آب و خاک، در ادعای مالکیت ابدی ازلی بر "سه جزیره" ، در دفاع اتشین از "خلیج همیشه فارس" و در خط و نشان کشیدن برای هر نیروی سیاسی که این نوع مقدسات را برسمیت نشناسد سنگ تمام میگذارند. هموطن هم به دو نوع تقسیم میشود: فارس ها که نسلشان به "نژاد پاک آریائی" و کورش و داریوش و امشاسپندان میرسد و غیر فارسها که اگر با موقعیت خود بعنوان شهروندان درجه دو بسازند "مرزبانان غیور" ایران هستند اما اگر این موقعیت را نپذیرند و برای رفع ستم ملی بپا بخیزند به سرعت به حضیض "تجزیه طلب" و "وطن فروش" و "خائن به وطن" سقوط میکنند! افغانیها و دیگر مهاجرین ساکن ایران هم که اصلا بحساب نمی آیند! این معنی واقعی وطن پرستی است.

معیارها و ارزشهای ما کمونیستها از جنس دیگری است. اساس سیاست و دکترین ما انسان و انسانیت است، آزادی و برابری و رفاه انسان است، و نه نژاد و وطن و ملیت و آب و خاک. نیروهای راست نه تنها دفاع از انسانها را به دفاع از هموطنان تقلیل میدهند، یا در واقع مسخ و تحریف میکنند، بلکه منظورشان از حمایت از "هموطن" هم چیزی بجز دفاع از تمامیت ارضی و پرچم و ایرانیت و ملیت نیست. به همین دلیل است که در عرصه مبارزه علیه اعدام، در دفاع از حقوق کودک، در دفاع از حقوق پناهندگان، در مبارزه علیه حجاب و آپارتاید جنسی و کلا بی حقوقی و ستم فاحشی که بر زنان روا میشود، در مبارزه علیه ستم ملی و برخورداری همه "مرزبانان غیور" از حقوق شهروندی برابر با "ملت همیشه فارس" از جمله حق سخن گفتن و تحصیل کردن و نوشتن به زبان مادری خود، در دفاع از زندانیان سیاسی و کلا در همه عرصه های مشخص مبارزه در دفاع از حقوق و آزادی و رفاه انسانهای ساکن جغرافیای ایران مستقل از ملیت و نژاد و زبان و محل تولدشان، عرصه هائی که ما کمونیستهای کارگری همیشه در صف اول مبارزه بوده ایم، نشانی از نیروهای راست نمی بینید. ظاهرا ابراز وفاداری به "دموکراسی" و "حقوق بشر"، که اسم رمز تعلق به اردوگاه سرمایه داری غرب است، کافی است. مبارزه مشخص این دموکراسی و حقوق بشر پناهان - آنهم حقوق بشری که ظاهرا کورش کبیر سردمدارش بوده است- از شمشیرزدن در دفاع از تعلق سه جزیره به مام میهن و دفاع از "خلیج همیشه فارس" و قدوسیت تمامیت ارضی و خط و نشان کشیدن علیه تجزیه طلبان فراتر نمیرود. هر جا هم حرفی علیه اعدام - که بیانیه حقوق بشر در موردش سکوت کرده است- و یا در دفاع از سکولاریسم زده اند تحت فشار و مبارزه جنبش چپ بوده است. ازین بابت باید خوشحال بود اما حقیقت اینست که اهداف و ارزشها و معیارهای هویتی و خصلت نمای جنبش ناسیونالیستی تماما در نقطه مقابل انسانیت و خواستها و نیازهای انسانی افراد جامعه قرار میگیرد.

در بخش دوم این سئوالتان از قول نیروهای راست مینویسید که کمونیستها "ارزشی برای فرد

و یک کارگر زحمتکش قائل نیستند ، بیشتر به حرکتهای توده ای یا حرکت گله ای مردم توجه دارند .

در ایدیولوژی ایشان ارزشهای اخلاقی ، محبت ، مهرورزی ، لطافت و ظرافت کمرنگ است

بیشتر خردگرا ، خشک و ماشینی هستند ..."

امیدوارم با توضیحاتی که در رابطه با وطن پرستی و کلا ارزشها و معیارهای جنبش راست دادم معنی واقعی "ارزشهای اخلاقی و محبت و مهرورزی و لطافت" نیروهای بورژوائی هم روشن شده باشد. ظاهرا امثال پینوشه و سوهارتو و شیخهای کویت و عربستان سعودی و جرج بوش و ریگان و مارگارت تاچر و میلتون فریدمن و دکترین ریاضت کشی افتصادی و توحش بازار آزاد و همه چیز در خدمت سود خیلی مهر ورز و با محبت و لطیف و اخلاقی و غیر ماشینی است! اما کمونیستهائی که میگویند اساس اقتصاد باید نیازهای انسانها و شعار "به هر کس باندازه نیازش" باشد و نه سود و سودآوری، "ماشینی و خشک و خشن" هستند! ببیند چطور تبلیغات جنگ سردی همه چیز را وارونه جلوه داده است. باید به این تبلیغات چی های جنگ سردی گفت حتی اگر میخواهید کارنامه امثال استالین و دیگر نمایندگان سرمایه داری دولتی را بحساب کمونیستها بنویسید لطفا اول یک سوزن بخودتان بزنید و بعد یک جوالدوز به کمونیستها. حتی در مقایسه کارنامه سرمایه داری بازار آزاد با سرمایه داری دولتی نوع روسی سابقه کمپ غرب - از جنایات هیتلر و دولت اسرائیل تا قساوت خونتاهای نظامی آمریکای لاتین و تا به آتش اتمی کشیدن هیروشیما و ناکازاکی و تا تاچریسم و ریگانیسم و فریدمنیسم، تماما گوی سبقت را از رقبای کمپ روسی اش - در تمامی زمینه های مربوط به مهرورزی و لطافت و ارزشهای اخلاقی و غیره ربوده است! از این نظر آن نیروئی که تماما به بشریت بدهکار است بورژوازی و جنبش ناسیونالیستی است و نه کمونیسم کارگری و جنبش کمونیستی.

حمید تقوایی

 

Tell us, Oh great leader of Hekmatism!

If there is no freely elected representative body of the whole (of socialist, or capitalist damn it!) society, and not just"worker's councils", who will control the leader if he wants to condemn one or the other as a "nationalist"?

Could it be that means, that beyond the democratic or non-democratic political bodies that pronounce judgments, there is some objectively grounded transcendent entity in which the correct judgments of judgment are de facto located?

Nothing else? No.. But this thing reminds me of..something.

What is it?

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Η ριζοσπαστική σεκταριστική κριτική τής σύγχρονης δημοκρατίας.

February 18, 2022, Shortly before the beginning of the Russian fascist invasion (Facebook).

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

The Russian liars

---

Lying is closer to the fetishistic notion of ontological unity.

Lies look like other lies, one lie leads to another lie, a lie can be a false imitation of another lie.

There are a number of false reflections to live an entire life with one or more lies.

But lies also create a constant rivalry between them, one lie opposing the other and claiming a greater truth than the other, conquering an even higher position in the realm of falsehood.

But there are also lies that are not based on their false confrontation with another lie as truths but are based on a false reconciliation with an old lie without actually manifesting themselves as different lies.

The new Russia falsely presents itself as a continuation of a lie that falsely had the name of socialism, the new Russia lies that it is a form of continuation of another lie that lied that it is socialism.

Those deceived by the original lie that the Soviet Union was a socialist country even for a moment (because it was never a socialist country) are easily deceived by the lie that the new Russia of Putin's mobsters and thugs is in some sequel to the lie of the Soviet Union.

When they have been deceived by such a frightening lie that the Soviet Union had something to do with what would be real socialism, how can they not be deceived by the new lie that the new Russia has something to do with this first lie?

Lying destroys any possibility of discrimination even between different lies.

---

Anyone who is used to loving a lie has no problem loving a false imitation of it.

---

Anyone who cannot distinguish the lie from the truth can also not distinguish a lie from a false imitation of this lie.

--

 

Greece 2022.
The pro-Westerners are miserable supporters of the EU and the US and the anti-Westerners are pro-Russian former Stalinist or Orthodox Christians (theocratic worms), who also like the theocratic regime in Tehran.
The revolutionary left / anarchy has a position of neutral observer of geopolitical data, but tends to follow indirectly the narrative of anti-Western reactionaries.
No way out.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

When the Leninists use the term ''directly elected and revocable'' for the people's representative..

When the Leninists use the term ''directly elected and revocable'' for the people's representative, they hide from us (through an ideological bureaucratic silence) the scandal they promoted and promote, that, this direct electability-and-revocability, in their so-called ''worker's'' institutional vision, do not extend to all central legislative and governmental institutions, especially to the from them beloved so-called "party of the working class", which in the monstrous political system that they promote as so-called "workers' power" acquires brutal and total authoritarian legislative and governmental power.
This Thing has never brought and will never bring workers' and people's democratic power.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Οι τρεις ρωσόδουλοι σταλινικοί ξεφτίλες.

Μπογιόπουλε, Λαφαζάνη και Σάββα Μιχαήλ, είστε τρεις ρωσόδουλοι σταλινικοί ξεφτίλες.

Πίσω σας ακολουθεί μια στάνη από ρωσόδουλα πρόβατα τής ελληνικής ξεφτιλοαριστεράς.

https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/.../10-brygada-edelweiss.../

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

A critical point for the democratic revolution in Iran.

 

A critical point for the democratic revolution in Iran.

Neither the bourgeois forces that "support" the would-be Shah, nor the left-wing forces, put forward a demand for the formation of a constituent assembly, which will be made up of freely elected representatives of the people.

We understood the Bonapartist "nature" of the anti-theocratic but ultra-conservative Iranian bourgeoisie, but we also see that even the Iranian left does not make such a democratic revolutionary demand.

The Iranian left is locked in "Soviet-Leninism", in various harder or softer versions of it, so it does not want anything resembling "parliamentary democracy".

Given that even the global (revolutionary) left has not yet been able to solve the riddle of the positive-modern form of the central representative institution that will be corresponding as a "socialist democracy" to a socialist classless society, and also given that the Iranian (revolutionary) left expresses an obsession with the old outdated, and essentially Bonapartist, sovietic model, in relation to this critical issue, bad developments are perpetuated for this revolution.

A right-wing monarchist or militarist version of the revolution's post-revolutionary institutional developments is most likely to prevail, unless strong pro-Western but anti-royalist centrist democratic forces emerge.

However, in any case, the dogmatism of the Iranian left leads the democratic movement in Iran to an absolute dead end, since only through the Iranian left could perhaps be ensured a real democratic transition in Iran, and as it seems, beyond radical democratic imaginations, the Iranian left is not interested in such a comprehensive parliamentary transition.

These people live in another era.

--

The historical creation from the point of view of the people, of the working class, of a central representative "body" of freely elected representatives, which will positively replace (determined negation) the leading democratic institution of the bourgeois democracy which is the parliament, has not been still exist as a creation.

What has been its socialist replacement until now, through workers' and people's councils, has failed completely.

Workers'-people's councils cannot "alone" meet the task of the democratic functioning of a society in its entirety through a central legislative and governmental institution.

The highest expression of bourgeois democracy at this central level, the national assembly and the parliament, has not found a suitable and stronger "antagonist" and replacement on the part of the anti-capitalist left forces.

I emphatically emphasize here, that the problem of the central institution of sovereignty is not a "part" of the "superstructure" as the "Marxists" claim, but a determining element of the total production relations themselves, therefore the non-solving it no will lead to an authoritarian socialism of the working class, which then in a more mature phase will establish a more open workers' democracy, as perhaps the "Marxists" imagine it in their "realist" imagination, but ( as non-resolution) it will again lead to an exploitative class system.

Therefore, the left, especially the Iranian left, if it is NOT planning a form of Marxist dictatorship and wants to respond to the contemporary facts and understand the limits that still exist in terms of the strategic political alternative that the left does NOT offer, globally, yet, MUST become the preacher and ardent supporter of the (already existing, in West) parliamentary model of central government of a country, especially when we are talking about a phase where, as in Iran now, the type of political power is at stake in the immediate future.

If in a country under a regime of fascist rule (or hybrid semi-fascist rule) there are no political forces that openly support the formation of a national assembly (and then a parliament) of freely elected representatives of the people, in the end, after the fall of the existing dictator regime, a dictatorship or an authoritarian semi-democracy of the Bonapartist type will emerge again.

--

To the Iranian comrades:

Given the historical limits and impasses of the left worldwide, on the basis of the strategic ineptitude of creating a truly democratic central institution for the management of the social totality, which would positively replace (''with'' positive-determinative negation, Hegel my baby) the model of bourgeois parliamentary democracy (I have analyzed this, extensively).

If you don't turn your ideological-political rudder a little "right", demanding a democratically elected (through free elections) government and also a constituent assembly, then the rudder of your beloved country will go even more "right".

The more leftist line in the Iranian movement leads to a more rightist post-revolutionary Iran.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Historical asynchronicities, which lead to a historical synchronicity.

Lenin believed that state capitalism could be led by a strong workers' power, which of course he defined it in a horrible hierarchical party-statist way, but in the end state capitalism swallowed Lenin[-ism] (as an ideology and as a political practice) into its abyss, turning itself (as state capitalism) into something even more abysmal, into a statist totalitarian system of exploitation which could hardly even be called "state capitalism".

---

 

Since I find from publications of leftist Iranian friends that there is a great battle going on in the circles of the Iranian leftist movement for the "purer revolutionary line" and the discovery of the secret mercenaries, the Shah and the western imperialists or theocrats, I want to reassure them by saying that I, as both a right-wing and left-wing opportunist, a centrist, a Kautskyist, and of course a Mossad agent, have not received any messages of concern to you, regarding the dangers you fear.

On the contrary, the superior in the service where I work, as a mercenary of course of all the dark forces together, told me that everything is going well, according to the planning of the service.

 

---

 

Real "centrism" is the "holy grail" of Marxists. I see them from my somewhat distant prism as eternally seeking to find the dialectical balance of all the contradictory forces that they consider pulling at them as demonic forces, one here and one there, a right-wing opportunism and a left-wing opportunism, Western imperialism and Eastern imperialism, a bunch of attractions between "demonic poles" of the "satanic bourgeois ideology" and they in the middle squinting at each other, hurling at each other various critical categorizations, related to the above and countless others "demonic dipoles".

Due to age now, I have left myself to the passions of bourgeois ideology, I am tired now, and I say to accept all the demonic proposals, anyway I am not going to be accepted into the Marxist paradise, so comrades, I propose something.

Calm down a little, drink some wine, and fear no the demons more than suspicion.

 

--

 

The "Westphalian" foundation of the modern state has been reproduced in many of reverse each other mirror images..

I hear, for example, many "class arguments" that I could imagine, somewhat fictionally, to be extensions of the "Westphalian" foundation.

 An idealized internal territory of an (ideological) sovereignty, a fear of the possible violation of this territory by "foreign" to it other (ideological) territories, a "law" of non-intervention of a of (ideological) sovereign territory in the "interior" of the other, in short a model of desired absolute purity.

In ours:

Someday the critique of the pure revolutionary Reason must be written.

 

--

 

You don't call it an insinuation, towards the Hekmatists, it is a normal attack, that they put the non-existent (according to the Hekmatists) national bourgeoisie through the back door or the window.

Is a democratic revolution possible without a progressive national bourgeoisie?

Of course not.

The question is who has the hegemony in the course of the revolution.

The Leninists, of course, the most "hard" among them, imagine this hegemony in their own tested way, which we have seen and learned its results, not for the possibly existing progressive bourgeoisie, but for society.

Needless to say, when I see Iranians Leninists puritans to they pour so much venom over a progressive program put forth by the Iranian left, I feel that something good is happening within that left. Iran's new left will not make it to the end, easily. Lurking are the Leninist guardians of revolutionary purity.

So, perhaps through this sectarian hold-up, who is most likely to take the hegemony?

The progressive national bourgeoisie of course!

 بلاخره معلوم نشد این «بورژوازی ملی و مترقی» افسانه بود و باید به تاریخ می‌پیوست و یا در بزنگاه خیزش‌های انقلابی از طریق یک «منشور مطالبات حداقلی» از پنجره نقبی به داخل می‌زند!

----

 

 

The modern Leninist guardians of revolutionary purity are not the only ones, but they are the oldest and the most tested.

They turn you from in love with revolution to married to pure revolutionary workers' power in a minute.

Well, good marriages, comrades, we'll never get married, although as opportunists we have good marriage proposals.

---

 

The nicest thing about "Marxists" is when they transform their "structural analyses" into insults and threats.

I like this situation, where ''dialectical analysis'' turns into a verbal attack you hear on docks or in religious-style wars, something between ''You infidel'' and ''fuck you class traitor'', sprinkled with hints about your supposed "petty-bourgeois" class origin, and if it gets too hot, then accusations are made for you that you are a mercenary agent, etc.

--

 

Perhaps some think that the class struggle fluctuates in its "temperatures", so they wait for the hot, oh my baby.

I, on the other hand, think that especially the class struggle is a very cold situation, always below the zero degree Celsius, I'm cold baby, throw some ideological wood in the fireplace.

--

 

The ring of power cannot fit into a Leninist finger anymore. No matter how much the Leninists want to their opportunity, it is lost very deep in the glacier of historical oblivion, and no Arthur is going to appear to extract it from there. Young people around the world, when they rise up, hardly fit into stable forms of revolutionary vanguards, even if they are "victims" of some radical instrumentalization.

The revolutionary party or "revolutionary vanguard" as a thin veneer of a mass movement, without many "teaching responsibilities", is the only one that can exist, although this too is doubtful.

As I have said elsewhere any mass progressive movement of late mondernity contains a -sometimes unconscious- "anarchism". We are talking in simplification.

As long as there is no alternative modern-positive solution (certainly not Soviet-Leninist) for who will be the central representative sovereign institution of an in-seed or more mature classless society, in place of the bourgeois parliament, the political position of this alternative proposal will necessarily be occupied by a left-wing party of Syriza type (unfortunately for us here) or SPD or whatever else moves within the constitutional framework of a typical (''western type'') parliamentary bourgeois democracy.

The Soviet-Leninist fantasies of re-establishing a supposedly more purely "working-class" founded "general assembly" of workers' councils (soviets) are reheated stale Soviet food.

The "anarchist" base of modern movements can tolerate a bourgeois left, but it cannot under any circumstances tolerate a Soviet-Leninist Thing over its head, and this historical fact within the progressive (and labor) movements is not "right deviation" nor opportunism, I will not joke again, it is simply the depiction of the strategic political problem of the social left, which, however, within the limits created by this problem, is wiser than the Leninist fantasists.

---

 

 

Historical asynchronicities, which lead to a historical synchronicity.

When Eastern Europe was enslaved by the iron hand of Soviet state "socialism" (an exploitative system, which approached Nazi fascism, as the state capitalist/state "socialist" counterpart of state-centered Nazi capitalism itself), in the non-Western capitalist world the working classes and the petty-bourgeois/rural-or-urban social strata they were attracted by this hybrid statism, to enter, supposedly on their own class terms, the modern world.

The beneficiaries were the emerging "regional" bureaucracies and the national/nationalist bourgeoisies of these (non-Western) regions.

If you spoke then, "there", against the "holy Soviet revolution", and that it was worse for the peoples of the region themselves (also for all peoples), at all levels of social fact, than the dominant in these countries (just before, or still) western imperialism/capitalism, they would hear you as a class enemy or a class/national "traitor", or at best they would consider you crazy.

The horrible experiences of the peoples of the Soviet empire, and later of the peoples of Eastern Europe, sounded to these ears like vulgar propaganda lies of the West.

There was therefore an asynchrony of direct social and historical experiences between the peoples of Europe and the Latin American and non-Western peoples.

Today, slowly but surely, a synchronicity of the social historical experiences of the peoples is occurring, which does not, however, justify the experiences of the non-Western peoples as experiences that more correctly present the capitalist and modern state phenomenon, nor does (this synchronicity) mean a kind of balancing common negative "charge" of all capitalisms-imperialisms.

What seems, somewhat in hindsight, to vindicate Hegel and his "Westernism" is that the hybrid semi-Western state capitalism of the Nazis and the Soviets, as a model and as a specific capitalist form, which creatively determined the development of capitalist relations of production in the emerging capitalist-imperialist non-Western world, was, is, and will be always worse for all peoples, but especially a disastrous for non-Western peoples.

---

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

The would-be Shah.

 

The would-be Shah, for whom the semi-liberal opposition has not clarified its position on what role it is preparing him for, presents itself as the guarantor of the continuity of the state.

At the boisterous bourgeois meeting in Georgetown, it was said by one participant (a woman, I believe) that it is a betrayal of the blood of the murdered Iranians to predetermine the type of state in the post-theocratic phase, but no one at that meeting deprived the would-be Shah of the role of guarantor of Iran's state continuity at this stage, a role he touts as his special future role.

Therefore;

Was the would-be Shah presented as an institutional guarantor of a future parliamentary democracy, in the symbolic role that kings have in Western democracies that maintain remnants of the institution of kingship?

No. Neither the would-be Shah nor those who accepted him in their oligarchic meeting as an equal member, did not clarify whether this is their goal.

So we have every right to assume that an authoritarian Bonapartist scenario is being prepared, in which the role of the monarch as an institution will not be symbolic or guarantor but decisive, in the sense that he will have powers that no king in any western democracy has.

--

Ο επίδοξος Σάχης, για τον οποίο η ημιφιλελεύθερη αντιπολίτευση δεν έχει ξεκαθαρίσει την θέση της για τον ποιο ρόλο τον ετοιμάζει, αυτοπροβάλλεται ως εγγυητής τής συνέχειας τού κράτους.

Στην θορυβώδη μπουρζουάδικη συνάντηση στο Georgetown, ειπώθηκε από έναν συμμετέχοντα (γυναίκα ήτανε θαρρώ) ότι είναι προδοσία τού αίματος των δολοφονημένων Ιρανών να προκαθοριστεί το είδος τού πολιτεύματος στην μεταθεοκρατική φάση, αλλά κανείς σε αυτή την συνάντηση δεν στέρησε από τον επίδοξο Σάχη τον ρόλο του εγγυητή τής κρατικής συνέχειας τού Ιράν σε αυτή τη φάση, έναν ρόλο που ο ίδιος διαφημίζει ως τον ειδικό μελλοντικό ρόλο του.

Άρα;

Παρουσιάστηκε άραγε ο επίδοξος Σάχης ως ένας θεσμικός εγγυητής μιας μελλοντικής κοινοβουλευτικής δημοκρατίας, στον συμβολικό ρόλο που έχουν οι βασιλείς στις δυτικές δημοκρατίες που διατηρούν απομεινάρια τού θεσμού τής βασιλείας;

Όχι. Ούτε ο επίδοξος Σάχης ούτε αυτοί που τον δέχτηκαν στην ολιγαρχική συνάντηση τους ως ισότιμο μέλος, δεν ξεκαθάρισαν αν αυτός είναι ο στόχος τους.

Έχουμε λοιπόν κάθε δικαίωμα να υποθέσουμε ότι ετοιμάζεται ένα αυταρχικό βοναπαρτιστικό σενάριο, εις το οποίο ο ρόλος του μονάρχη ως θεσμού δεν θα είναι συμβολικός ή εγγυητικός αλλά καθοριστικός, με την έννοια ότι θα έχει αρμοδιότητες και εξουσίες που δεν έχει κανένας βασιλιάς σε οποιαδήποτε δυτική δημοκρατία.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος